kauno kolegijos fotografija (valstybinis kodas …studijų programos pavadinimas fotografija...
TRANSCRIPT
STUDIJŲ KOKYBĖS VERTINIMO CENTRAS
KAUNO KOLEGIJOS
STUDIJŲ PROGRAMOS FOTOGRAFIJA
(valstybinis kodas -653W64003)
VERTINIMO IŠVADOS
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EVALUATION REPORT
OF PHOTOGRAPHY (state code - 653W64003)
STUDY PROGRAMME at KAUNAS COLLEGE
Experts’ team:
1. Prof. dr. Annie Doona (team leader) academic,
2. Mr. Mika Ritalahti, academic,
3. Dr. Peter Purg, academic,
4. Mr. David Quin, academic,
5. Ms. Vilma Samulionytė, representative of social partners’
6. Ms. Julija Paulauskaitė, students’ representative.
Evaluation coordinator -
Ms Natalja Bogdanova
Išvados parengtos anglų kalba
Report language – English
DUOMENYS APIE ĮVERTINTĄ PROGRAMĄ
Studijų programos pavadinimas Fotografija
Valstybinis kodas 653W64003
Studijų sritis Meno studijos
Studijų kryptis Fotografija ir medijos
Studijų programos rūšis Koleginės
Studijų pakopa Pirmoji
Studijų forma (trukmė metais) Nuolatinė – 3 metai, ištęstinė – 4 metai
Studijų programos apimtis kreditais 180
Suteikiamas laipsnis ir (ar) profesinė
kvalifikacija Fotografijos profesinis bakalauras
Studijų programos įregistravimo data 2011-10-17
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
INFORMATION ON EVALUATED STUDY PROGRAMME
Title of the study programme Photography
State code 653W64003
Study area Arts
Study field Photography and Media
Type of the study programme Collegial
Study cycle First
Study mode (length in years) Full-time – 3 years, part-time – 4 years
Volume of the study programme in credits 180
Degree and (or) professional qualifications
awarded Professional Bachelor in Photography
Date of registration of the study programme 2011-10-17
© Studijų kokybės vertinimo centras
The Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1. Background of the evaluation process.......................................................................................4
1.2. General ..................................................................................................................................4
1.3. Background of the HEI/Faculty/Study field/ Additional information ....................................4
1.4. The Review Team ...................................................................................................................5
II. PROGRAMME ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Programme aims and learning outcomes ..................................................................................5
2.2. Curriculum design .....................................................................................................................8
2.3. Teaching staff ............................................................................................................................9
2.4. Facilities and learning resources ............................................................................................11
2.5. Study process and students‘ performance assessment ............................................................11
2.6. Programme management .........................................................................................................13
2.7. Examples of excellence……………………………………………………………………..14
III. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 15
IV. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 16
V. GENERAL ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................................... 17
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the evaluation process
The evaluation of on-going study programmes is based on the Methodology for evaluation
of Higher Education study programmes, approved by Order No 1-01-162 of 20 December 2010 of
the Director of the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education (hereafter – SKVC).
The evaluation is intended to help higher education institutions to constantly improve their
study programmes and to inform the public about the quality of studies.
The evaluation process consists of the main following stages: 1) self-evaluation and self-
evaluation report prepared by Higher Education Institution (hereafter – HEI); 2) visit of the review
team at the higher education institution; 3) production of the evaluation report by the review team
and its publication; 4) follow-up activities.
On the basis of external evaluation report of the study programme SKVC takes a decision to
accredit study programme either for 6 years or for 3 years. If the programme evaluation is negative
such a programme is not accredited.
The programme is accredited for 6 years if all evaluation areas are evaluated as “very
good” (4 points) or “good” (3 points).
The programme is accredited for 3 years if none of the areas was evaluated as
“unsatisfactory” (1 point) and at least one evaluation area was evaluated as “satisfactory” (2 points).
The programme is not accredited if at least one of evaluation areas was evaluated as
"unsatisfactory" (1 point).
1.2.General
The Application documentation submitted by the HEI follows the outline recommended by
the SKVC.
1.3.Background of the HEI/Faculty/Study field/ Additional information
The basis of the evaluation of the Photography study program (653W64003) is the Self-
Evaluation Report (SER) written in 2015, its annexes and the site visit of the expert group to
Kaunas College in November 2015. The SER has been written by a team composed of seven
persons: one Associate Professor, four lecturers, one administrator and one student. The tasks of the
self-evaluation are clearly defined (SER, p. 5), and the report is precise and comprehensive.
The visit took place on 24th
of November and incorporated all required meetings with different
groups: the administrative staff of the Faculty, staff responsible for the preparation of self-
evaluation documents, teaching staff, students, alumni, and social partners. The Review Team
inspected various facilities (classrooms, libraries, studios and gallery), examined samples of
students’ work, such as final theses and final artistic work. The site visit concluded with the expert
group presenting its overview of the visit and general conclusions to the self-evaluation team and
members of staff. After the visit, the team met to discuss and agree the content of this report, which
represents the members’ consensual views.
Kauno kolegija / University of Applied Sciences (hereinafter – KK) was established in 2000
having joined Kaunas School of Economics and Kaunas School of Technology, which had achieved
best-performing results in national selection. In 2005, KK was accredited as a non-university
institution of higher education. In 2011, KK was granted the status of a Public Enterprise (PE). In
2014, KK was accredited for the maximum of a 6-year period by international external evaluators.
At present, KK is one the largest Universities of Applied Sciences in Lithuania with the community
of more than 7,300 students, some 1,000 employees, and more than 22,000 graduates.
Justinas Vienozinskis Faculty of Arts (JVFA) has been a division of KK since 2001. It has 8
departments (the Department of Photography, Image Design, Art Education, Preschool Education,
Decorative Plastic, Conservation and Restoration of Works of Art, Design, and Fashion Design),
which implement the study programmes of the same title. The study programme of Photography is
being implemented since 2012.
1.4. The Review Team
The review team was completed according Description of experts‘ recruitment, approved by
order No. 1-01-151 of Acting Director of the Centre for Quality Assessment in Higher Education.
The Review Visit to HEI was conducted by the team on 24th
November, 2015.
II. PROGRAMME ANALYSIS
2.1. Programme aims and learning outcomes
This is a very good programme with a number of strengths. The Review Team agree that in
general the programme aims and learning outcomes are well defined and clearly articulated. They
1. Dr. Annie Doona (team leader), President of Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and
Technology, Ireland.
2. Mika Ritalahti, Silva Mysterium Oy producer and managing director, Finland.
3. Dr. Peter Purg, professor of University of Nova Gorica, SQAA evaluator, Slovenia.
4. David Quin, lector of Dún Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology, Ireland.
5. Vilma Samulionytė, photographer, curator- project manager and secretary of board of
Lithuanian Photographers Association, Lithuania.
6. Julija Paulauskaitė, student of Kaunas University of Technology study programme
Phiolosophy of Media, Lithuania.
are publically accessible in the Lithuanian language online at www.kaunokolegija.lt
www.aikos.smm.lt www.studijos.lt www.jvmf.lt. The Programme Aim (SER p. 6) „to train a
Professional Bachelor in Photography, who has a unique artistic taste; is critically minded and
creative; is able to work individually and in team in newspapers, magazines, fashion or advertising
agencies, art galleries, television studios, museums, enterprises providing photography services;
can create and develop the business of photography and expand creative activities“ is broadly
achieved, with students and alumni evidencing artistic sensibility, creativity, critical thinking and
market awareness.
The Review Team are of the view that in a small number of cases the programme learning
outcomes could be shortened and simplifed. For example, LO 001“will know the philosophical,
psychological aspects of the history of photography, cinema/video art, art and architecture as well
as visual expression that are necessary for aesthetic perception while seeking functional harmony
in personal creative performance“ is far too broad and ambitious, more like multi PhD level
research. Words like ‘know’ and broad concepts like ‘philosophical’, ‘psychological’, ‘art’,
‘architecture’ and ‘aesthetic perception’ are collectively a little beyond Professional Bachelors
level. However, if the word ‘basic’ or ‘fundamental’ is introduced, then it could make the LO a little
more attainable and assessible „will apply basic aspects of the philosophy, psychology and history
of photography, cinema/video art, art and architecture through creative photographic project
work.“
LO 002 „will analyse, evaluate, interpret style, aesthetics, creative objects, and acquire
individual artistic approach“ might be refined to „will analyse, evaluate and interpret aspects of
style, aesthetics and creative object creation to devise an individual artistic approach.“
LO 003“will be able to choose and master traditional and digital photography technique
and situation with regard to the need" might be clearer as “will be able to employ various
traditional and digital photography techniques in a variety of professionalised situations.”
LO 004 might then be unnecessary. Alternatively, LOs 4, 5 and 6 might become one: “will
be able to employ various traditional and digital photography techniques in a variety of
professionalised situations and during postproduction processes (including editing and printing).”
LO 007 “will understand the processes of video production (reproduction, production and
postproduction) and be able to manage them” might be more simply expressed as “will apply and
manage the basic principles of video production (production, postproduction and reproduction).”
LOs 008 and 009 “will be able to analyse and identify the need of photography in the field
of performance” and “will be able to design a creative strategy in the chosen field of professional
performance” could be conflated into “will be able to design a creative strategy, including the use
of professionalised photography, in a chosen field of performance.”
LO 010 should really mention the word ‘specialisation’; or are graduates all expected to
master the fundamentals of photo reportage, fashion photography and architectural and/or object
photography?
LO 011 “will master management principles, systems, legal regulations of work
environment and improve personal creative performance” is too ambitious because of the word
‘master’ – it suggests Magister (MA) level competency? Also is the expectation that management
principles, systems, legal regulations and the work environment are not going to be ‘mastered’ by
all Professional Bachelor graduates. This LO might be changed to “will apply aspects of basic
management principles, systems, law and work environment regulations to facilitate
professionalised photographic creativity.”
The mention in LO 013 of “preparing a Portfolio” should be a LO by itself – “On
successful completion of this programme, a graduate will have ‘prepared and presented a
professionalised photographic portfolio.”
The Review Team are also of the view that there may need to be greater clarity and
consistency between the programme learning outcomes and the module learning outcomes,
including assessment. Once again, clearer and simpler programme learning outcomes would
facilitate the reliable and transparent assessment of module learning outcomes.
Having checked the course descriptor document Annex 2_Description of study subjects and
other documents the Review Team found evidence of a strong, well-structured and blended
approach to assessment, across the modules and through the programme stages, building from early
written tests and quizzes on theroretical basics, through oral tests, case studies, mindmaps,
discussion in groups, study in groups, written assignments and presentations. With simplification
and clarification of the LOs, the mapping and assessment of (and ongoing improvement and
enhancement of) the programme learning outcomes will be facilitated.
Programme learning outcomes and module learning outcomes are based on the academic
and professional requirements, public needs and the needs of the labour market. Page 12 of the SER
states: „Communication and cooperation with stakeholders (representatives of associations,
employers, social partners, students) is carried on, and their expectations and wishes are taken into
account while updating the descriptions of study courses and anticipated learning outcomes of the
study programme.” It must be noted that the stakeholders involved with the programme at the
moment tend to be drawn predominantly from other colleges like Liepaja University and VAA and
the cultural industries. Approaches to more ‘creative industry’ stakeholders would benefit the
programme and students (especially where reportage, fashion photography, product photography
and internet related photography are already being considered on the programme). The Review
Team commends the breadth of the curriculum and its relationship to the labour market and future
employability.
The Programme learning aims are consistent with the type and level of studies and the level
of qualification offered. This is already a strong Professional Bachelor programme and document
Annex 1_Study plan shows commendably clear sequencing of student learning, from basics,
through more advanced subjects, building to professionalised outcomes in stage three. One
stakeholder commented „actually they’re motivated much more here, because they only have 3
years. They are in a hurry!”
The name of the programme, the learning outcomes and qualification offered are compatable
with each other, although the Review Team did feel that the simple title Photography does not do
justice to the breadth and distinctiveness of the programme offered. The large format and analogue
opportunities for learning make this programme distinctive, even internationally. The Review Team
is of the view that this distinctive programme would potentially be attractive to a wide variety of
international learners.
2.2. Curriculum design
The curriculum design meets legal requirements. According to the SER, the programme has
been compiled following the orders of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of
Lithuania, including Description of the general requirements for degree providing undergraduate
and consecutive study programmes, approved by Order of the Minister of Education and Science of
the Republic of Lithuania No. V-501, 09/04/2010, Regarding amendments to the Description of the
general requirements for degree providing undergraduate and consecutive study programmes,
approved by Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania No. V-
501, 09/04/2010, approved by order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of
Lithuania No. V-105, 14/01/2011 and Regarding amendments to the Description of the general
requirements for degree providing undergraduate and consecutive study programmes, approved by
Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Lithuania No. V-501,
09/04/2010, approved by order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of
Lithuania No. V-232, 08/02/2012.
The curriculum is very good and appears adaptable, flexible and responsive to the changing
economic and social context and to student feedback.
Document Annex 1_Study plan clearly shows how subjects are spread evenly through the
various stages, avoiding the repetition of themes. Learning is reinforced and built on as the student
progresses. Early on, students get strong grounding in fundamentals (photographic studio practice,
art basics and photographic theroretical fundamentals), which later allow them to approach project
work and the development of their own photographic expression in a professionalised manner.
The content of the course units (module) are completely consistent with a strong
Professional Bachelor award. In the meeting with the Review Team, one graduate remarked he
“gets the basics here, then goes to VDA to develop his mental mind.“ In the later stages of the
programme, business planning and organisation, creativity planning, the basics of research and
communication psychology are all introduced. Students are developing soft skills on the programme
and stakeholders were in general content with their abilities, including the graduates ability to learn.
One stakeholder remarked „in our situation, the system changes so often, we have to learn every
day! They know basic facts and they learn the rest outside.”
The content and methods of the course units are appropriate for the achievement of the
intended learning outcomes. Module (course unit) learning outcomes are simple and clear. A
revision of some of the programme LOs (suggested in 2.1 above) would allow better relationship
between the LOs, the modules, content, assessment and the mapping and checking of learning
outcome achievement.
The content of the programme does reflect the latest achievements in science, art and
technology. In the context of this programme, the term ‘science’ is completely appropriate, because
students learn about subjects like optics, the physics of light and the chemical fundamentals of their
analogue media. The core programme team is small (two central people) which allows them a
holistic overview of the programme. Page 12 of the SER states: “every year, the academic staff
revise the content of the study courses they teach and, if necessary, include the materials related to
the latest achievements or changes in the field of photography.”
2.3. Teaching staff
The programme is provided by the staff meeting Lithuanian legal requirements. The
Description of the general requirements for degree providing undergraduate and consecutive study
programmes, approved by Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of
Lithuania No. V-501, 09/04/2010, requires that more than a half of the academic staff should have
more than 3-year practical experience in the field taught. On this programme, about 95 per cent of
the academic staff have more than 3-year practical experience in the field of the subject taught (SER
p. 14).
Qualifications of the programme teaching staff are adequate to ensure the achievement of
programme and course unit learning outcomes. Page 14 of the SER states: „All lecturers who work
in the study programme have acquired Master or Equivalent to Master Degree.”
The number of teaching staff is adequate to ensure learning outcomes, with one FTE for an
average of 10 students, slightly better than the one FTE for 11.3 students average in Lithuanian
institutions of higher education.
Teaching staff are well qualified and highly motivated. The Review Team has some
concerns about the ratio of full to part time staff on the programme. A greater concern is the fact
that the core programme leadership and delivery appears to revolve around two key staff members,
although we note that these are very competent, highly commited, artistically excellent individuals.
Stakeholders commented „sometimes they work too hard. They sometimes miss themselves, forget
themselves. You think that you can manage everything. Life learns!” Another stakeholder told the
Review Team „the programme and the teachers are so active. They must expand the team. Two
major professionals are not enough.”
There is no data on staff turnover in the SER, but the Review Team was informed that staff
turnover on this programme was low.
The Review Team welcome the existence of a new centre for competency development in
KK, but would see the need for a systematic approach to the pedagogical development of staff, both
full and part time. Table 3.2.2 on p. 16 of the SER detail teachers participation in conferences,
seminars, courses and internships and Table 3.2.3 (again on SER p. 16) details the in-service
training of the programme’s teaching staff.
The programme teaching staff are involved in the pursuit of their own artistic work,
exhibitions etc, but postgraduate research, connected to development and/or production, presents no
obvious strength of the programme as yet. In time, research should be strategically developed to
respond to the internationalisation agenda of KK. Such research activity could become an important
vehicle for the broader visibility of the programme. Research would also feed back into the
professional development of the teaching staff, the ongoing modernisation and refreshment of the
programme and improved student experience.
The SER (Table 3.2.4 on p. 17) pointed out that outgoing lecturer mobility (19 visits over
three years) was generally good, but incoming lecturer mobility (Table 3.2.5 on p. 17) of 2 lecturers
in three years was poor. Incoming lecturer numbers was clearly indicated as a weakness (SER
bottom of p. 17) and “expanding the network of social partners according to the profile of the study
programme in foreign institutions of education” was the SER’s proposed action for improvement
(SER p. 17). Again, the Review Team would recommend that Erasmus and other formal agreements
with international colleges should be strategically expanded over the coming years in line with the
KK’s internationalisation agenda.
2.4. Facilities and learning resources
The Review Team viewed the facilities and resources available to this programme. The
resources are excellent with high standard equipment and facilities including studios and
darkrooms. The inventory of large format analogue cameras, lenses, enlargers and printers was
especially impressive, distinctive even by international standards. The Review Team noted the
opportunities for students to undertake analogue and digital photography and video work. The
Review Team is highly supportive of the planned developments with regard to new studio facilities
in the old gallery building (the ground floor of which is currently occupied by the programme
library). Even with the current student numbers, studio, darkroom, teaching space and lab spaces are
already small and will, with any expansion of the programme, need to be supplemented by new
studio, darkroom. teaching space and lab provision.
The Review Team would stress the need for a robust system for the loan of equipment to
students in order to ensure transparency, fairness and compliance with regulations including
insurance. At the moment, equipment loans are negotiated and agreed verbally between the students
and the two core lecturers – this should be changed to a simple paper or database loan system to
protect all parties. The Review Team commends the exhibition spaces available to students and
visiting photographers.
Library facilities are very good with a commendable range of photographic-related print and
the equally commendable provision of readily-accessible free computer facilities.
Overall the campus is highly suitable to the future development of the programme with
excellent facilities and room for growth.
2.5. Study process and students‘ performance assessment
The admission requirements for this study programme of Photography are well-founded
Students’ as defined by the Association of Lithuanian Higher Schools for General Admission
(LAMA BPO). General admission is organised following the terms and conditions of students’
enrolment into collegial studies, according to the’ Rules of Students’ Enrolment in 2014, approved
by the resolution No. (2.2.)-3-8 of KK Academic Council, 09/05/2014’. These rules in turn are
based on the principles of general admission, the description of the order of entrance examinations,
and the description of sequencing top applicants.
Overall student study processes are good, with strong module descriptors, module learning
outcomes and a variety of well-blended assessment methods. Students appear well motivated, happy
with their programme and indeed proud of it. Students are encouraged to participate in artistic and
applied activities.
There are opportunites for students to participate in Erasmus, and the Review Team note that
outward participation is good (26 students over 3 years) but would want to see a diversification and
increase in the number of Erasmus partners from a broader range of nations. Only 1 student (from
Portugal) came into the programme over the three-year period (in Semester 1, 2014/2015). Page 30
of the SER points out that “there is an imbalance between the numbers of outgoing and incoming
students, because the study programme is still young and insufficiently known abroad.” Again, the
Review Team would recommend that Erasmus and other formal agreements with international
colleges should be strategically expanded over the coming years in line with the Kaunas college’s
internationalisation agenda.
Moodle is available in KK, but p. 13 of the SER claims „However, the study programme of
Photography does not use this option to the full.” Moodle training for lecturers had only taken place
one month before the Review team visit. On p. 14 of the SER asserted that „only 10 per cent of the
study materials of the study programme are uploaded in the virtual learning environment Moodle.”
The Action for Improvement rather ambitiously suggested that “60 per cent of the study materials
of the study programme” should be uploaded to Moodle. “It should be purposeful to intensify the
usage of innovative distance teaching methods, particularly via virtual learning environment
Moodle” (again, p. 14 of SER). The Review Team repeatedly requested sight of or visitor access to
the programme’s Moodle environment, but this never happened during site visit or during the
review process. In the discussions with the Review Team, one lecturer argued “72 hours to migrate
a course onto Moodle – I calculated. In Arts education, eye to eye contact is very important.” Other
lecturers admitted a place for virtual platforms “A lot of the students are working, study programme
is very expensive. The students’ schedules are sometimes challenging. We understand the situation,
we’re starting to use Moodle.” The Review Team would argue that modern pedagogical
development of programme teachers in areas like Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) would
assist all of the programme team to incorporate the use of Moodle and other tools into programme
in a structured manner, over a period of years, to enhance and facilitate student learning.
Page 20 of the SER identified the need „to develop methodological teaching materials to
provide students with concise information” as a weakness. The development of “2 methodological
publications for teaching specialty courses” was suggested in the SER (again p. 20) as the action
for improvement.
Social and academic support for students seems to be based on the individual initiative and
informal relationships between staff and students. Such pastoral care works well when student
numbers are small and when the programme’s two core team members appear to be available 24/7.
One st year student remarked “I think they’re the best teachers in Lithuania”. A 3rd explained
„There are no secrets. If there are problems in our lives, we can talk with the lecturers, explain
anything. We are a big family”.
The Review Team would like to see a more systematic approach from the programme to the
provision of financial, personal and academic support.
Students did not appear aware of what supports might be available to them other than
approaching individual lecturers, though p. 27 of the SER claimed that multi-faceted student
support was available. Students had little comprehension of possible learning or psychological
difficulties. When the Review Team asked why some students left the programme, the student
response was „Maybe because they’re too weak? The programme was not theoretical enough? One
student thought she was ill and she left”. One 3rd year student claimed „The Vice Dean is the most
important person – she solves all the other problems”. According to p. 27 of the SER, it‘s claimed
that students were „informed about various possibilities of assistance during the course in
Introduction to Studies. Those possibilities are defined in the Law on Science and Studies of the
Republic of Lithuania, Order of Studies at KK and other legal acts. The Vice-Dean, Head of the
Department and academic group tutors also acquaint freshmen with the content of these
documents”. The Review Team would suggest that some training on learning difficulties and
routine psychological problems should be offered to teachers and even to students (students do after
all depend on their peers to pick up warning signs and to provide some initial counsel and support).
The Review Team would recommend that the programme should discover what professional
councelling is available in KK for students with learning difficulties and psychological problems.
The Review Team agrees that the programme assessment system is clear, adequate and
publicly available.
The programme has only recently produced its first graduate cohort. The Review Team met two –
one working in Vilnius as a freelancer and the other engaged in postgraduate studies in VAA. Both
were very content with their time on the programme. They also mentioned that they‘re permitted to
return to the college to use equipment and to talk to students and lecturers. This is to be
commended. Alumni are significant stakeholders in any programme.
2.6. Programme management
Management of the programme in general appears good, especially with the current
relatively modest student numbers, excellent material and equipment provision and the
programme’s reliance on a small number of core staff. As things stand, the programme management
is in a position to respond to student needs and requirements. The Review Team would however
note the focus on multiple QA reviews; currently 12 surveys are underway – far too many to handle
on the level of the programme management. A solid database system to deal with big data and draw
practical actions should be made, and the QA data system should be rationalised to deal with only
the most QA-relevant empirical evidence.
Page 32 of the SER states “Self-assessment is based on accumulating, filing and analysing
substantiated and trustworthy data. However, the information systems that function in KK lack
mutual compatibility. Without efficient integration of information systems, lack of the integrity of
the documentation accumulated is felt”. Page 34 of the SER identifies the weakness “Huge volume
of the information necessary for assessing the quality of the study programme, which requires the
increasing time input for collecting data.” The Review Team suggests that data collection is only a
first component of an effective QA system. Collected data must be efficiently processed,
development priorities must be identified and prompt and effective actions must be taken based on
the gathered and processed data.
The Review Team believe a strategic plan needs to be developed for the programme, with
programme priorities identified, including a plan for growth, plans for the allocation and future
sustainable maintenance of resources and for the pedagogical development and mobility of
programme staff. Any such strategic plan should be in line with the strategic plans and visions of
KK.
Social partners appear supportive of the programme and satisifed with the programme and
the quality of its graduates. The program has signed social partnership agreements with
organisations such as Kaunas National Drama theatre, Football Federation and Kaunas City
Municipality which will provide placement practice for students which will be counted or credited
on the programme as part of student studies (SER p. 19). The Review Team would encourage the
programme to continue to sign such formal long-term agreements with local social partners.
The Review Team would also point out the need to diversify the range of social partners to
include partners from the Creative Industries. Social partners do appear involved in the study
programme and study processes, and some are asked to return as guest lecturers and advisors. This
is to be commended.
2.7. Examples of excellence *
The resources are excellent with high standard equipment (especially large format and
analogue) and facilities including studios, darkrooms and exhibition spaces.The Review Team
noted the opportunities for students to undertake digital photography and video work, but the
opportunity to deeply engage with large format and analogue photographic techniques is a truly
unique, international-class learning opportunity for students.
The Review Team commends the attractive exhibition spaces available to students and
visiting photographers.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Review Team recommends that programme learning outcomes should be simplified and
shortened.
2. The Review Team recommemds that more of the programme staff should be hired on a full
time basis.
3. The Review Team recommends that the programme responsibilities should be ashared
amongst more than two core lecturers.
4. The Review team would recommend the development of a systematic approach to the
pedagogical development of staff, both full and part time.
5. The Review Team would advise the development and implementation of a strategy for
internationalisation and improved staff mobility.
6. The Review Team recommends the diversification of and increase in the number of Erasmus
partners, from a broader range of nations.
7. The Review Team would like to see a more systematic approach from the programme to the
provision of financial, personal, academic and psychological supports for students.
8. The Review Team suggest that the student representation system needs to be more
formalised.
9. The Review Team recommends that the allocation and future maintenance of resources
should be planned in a strategic and sustainable manner.
10. The Review Team recommends that the range of social partners should be diversified to
include more partners from the Creative Industries.
IV. SUMMARY
This is a strong programme, which achieves its stated programme aims and offers distinctive
opportunities for students to engage with large format, analogue photographic technology and
techniques. Additional programme development and spatial provision, the measured expansion of
student numbers and the expansion and pedagogical development of the core lecturing team could
allow this programme to correctly assume a reputational prominence at Lithuanian and at
international level.
Continuous refinement of the programme learning outcomes is recommended. In some cases
the programme learning outcomes should be shortened and simplified.
The curriculum design is very good and appears adaptable, flexible and responsive to the
changing economic and social context and to student feedback.
Expansion of the core lecturing team and measured pedagogical development of the
lecturing team would be recommended.
The current equipment inventory, darkroom, laboratory, exhibition and library spaces are
commendable. The programme has strong foundations which would benefit from sound strategic
planning. The Review Team note the potential for additional spatial provision and development.
Student study process and the assessment of performance are generally strong. A measured
expansion of student numbers and the strategic approach to internationalisation and mobility would
allow this strong programme to further development.
Management of the programme in general appears good, especially with the current
relatively modest student numbers, excellent material and equipment provision and the
programme’s reliance on a small number of core staff. The programme management is in a position
to respond to current student needs and requirements.
V. GENERAL ASSESSMENT
The study programme Photography (state code – 653W64003) at Kaunas College is given positive
evaluation.
Study programme assessment in points by evaluation areas.
No. Evaluation Area
Evaluation of
an area in
points*
1. Programme aims and learning outcomes 3
2. Curriculum design 3
3. Teaching staff 3
4. Facilities and learning resources 4
5. Study process and students’ performance assessment 3
6. Programme management 3
Total: 19
*1 (unsatisfactory) - there are essential shortcomings that must be eliminated;
2 (satisfactory) - meets the established minimum requirements, needs improvement;
3 (good) - the field develops systematically, has distinctive features;
4 (very good) - the field is exceptionally good.
Grupės vadovas:
Team leader:
Annie Doona
Grupės nariai:
Team members: Mika Ritalahti
Peter Purg
David Quin
Vilma Samulionytė
Julija Paulauskaitė
Vertimas iš anglų kalbos
KAUNO KOLEGIJOS PIRMOSIOS PAKOPOS STUDIJŲ PROGRAMOS
FOTOGRAFIJA (VALSTYBINIS KODAS – 653W64003)
2016-02-03 EKSPERTINIO VERTINIMO IŠVADŲ NR. SV4-57 IŠRAŠAS
<...>
V. APIBENDRINAMASIS ĮVERTINIMAS
Kauno kolegijos studijų programa Fotografija (valstybinis kodas – 653W64003) vertinama
teigiamai.
Eil.
Nr.
Vertinimo sritis
Srities
įvertinimas,
balais*
1. Programos tikslai ir numatomi studijų rezultatai 3
2. Programos sandara 3
3. Personalas 3
4. Materialieji ištekliai 4
5. Studijų eiga ir jos vertinimas 3
6. Programos vadyba 3
Iš viso: 19
* 1 - Nepatenkinamai (yra esminių trūkumų, kuriuos būtina pašalinti)
2 - Patenkinamai (tenkina minimalius reikalavimus, reikia tobulinti)
3 - Gerai (sistemiškai plėtojama sritis, turi savitų bruožų)
4 - Labai gerai (sritis yra išskirtinė)
<...>
IV. SANTRAUKA
Ši studijų programa – stipri, ją vykdant pasiekiami numatyti studijų programos tikslai, o
studentams suteikiamos išskirtinės galimybės mokytis didelio formato ir analoginės fotografijos
technologijų bei būdų. Papildomai išplėtus pačią studijų programą ir jos dėstymui skirtas fizines
erdves, planuojamas studentų skaičiaus didėjimas, pagrindinės dėstytojų grupės augimas ir
pedagoginės kvalifikacijos kėlimas veikiausiai leis šiai studijų programai įgyti tinkamos reputacijos
ir išgarsėti tiek Lietuvos, tiek tarptautiniu lygiu.
Rekomenduojama nuolat atnaujinti programos studijų rezultatus. Kai kuriais atvejais
programos studijų rezultatų sąrašą reikėtų sutrumpinti ir supaprastinti.
Programos sandara – labai gera ir atrodo pritaikoma, lanksti ir atitinka tiek besikeičiantį
socioekonominį kontekstą, tiek studentų grįžtamąjį ryšį.
Rekomenduojama išplėsti pagrindinę dėstytojų grupę ir toliau kelti dėstytojų pedagoginę
kvalifikaciją.
Dabartinė turima įranga, fotolaboratorijos, laboratorijos, ekspozicijų ir bibliotekos erdvės
vertinamos teigiamai. Studijų programai būdingi tvirti pagrindai, kuriuos dar labiau sustiprintų
sklandus strateginis planavimas. Ekspertų grupė pažymi, kad yra pakankamai vietos patalpoms
išplėsti ir įrengti.
Studijų procesas ir studijų pažangumo vertinimas iš esmės yra geri. Augantis studentų
skaičius ir strateginis požiūris į tarptautiškumą bei judumą leistų šiai stipriai studijų programai
plėtotis toliau.
Studijų programos vadyba iš tiesų atrodo gerai, ypač šiuo metu, kai studentų yra palyginti
nedaug, puikiai sustyguotas aprūpinimas medžiagomis ir įranga, o už pačią studijų programą atsako
keli pagrindiniai darbuotojai. Studijų programos vadyba tenkina dabartinius studentų poreikius ir
reikalavimus.
<...>
III. REKOMENDACIJOS
1. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja supaprastinti ir sutrumpinti programos studijų rezultatų
sąrašą.
2. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja visu etatu įdarbinti daugiau studijų programos dėstytojų.
3. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja atsakomybę už studijų programą paskirstyti daugiau kaip
dviem pagrindiniams dėstytojams.
4. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja suformuluoti sisteminį požiūrį į dėstytojų pedagoginės
kvalifikacijos kėlimą, nepriklausomai nuo to, ar jie turi visą, ar dalį etato.
5. Ekspertų grupė taip pat pataria sukurti ir įgyvendinti tarptautiškumo bei darbuotojų judumo
didinimo strategiją.
6. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja diversifikuoti „Erasmus“ partnerius ir padidinti jų skaičių,
įtraukiant partnerių iš kuo įvairesnių šalių.
7. Ekspertų grupė mano, kad vykdant šią studijų programą studentams turėtų būti sistemiškiau
teikiama finansinė, asmeninė, akademinė ir psichologinė pagalba.
8. Ekspertų grupė siūlo labiau formalizuoti atstovavimo studentams sistemą.
9. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja strategiškai ir tvariai planuoti materialiųjų išteklių
paskirstymą bei tolesnę priežiūrą.
10. Ekspertų grupė rekomenduoja diversifikuoti socialinių partnerių ratą ir daugiau jų įtraukti iš
kūrybinių industrijų srities.
<...>
2.7. Išskirtinės kokybės pavyzdys
Materialieji ištekliai – puikūs, o įranga (ypač didelio formato ir analoginės fotografijos) ir
patalpos, įskaitant studijas, fotolaboratorijas ir parodų erdves, atitinka aukščiausius reikalavimus.
Ekspertų grupė pastebi, kad studentams sudarytos galimybės kurti skaitmeninės fotografijos ir
vaizdo darbus, tačiau galimybę gilintis į didelio formato ir analoginės fotografijos technikas vertina
kaip išties unikalią tarptautinio lygio studijų galimybę.
Ekspertų grupė teigiamai vertina patrauklias parodų erdves, kuriose savo darbus gali
eksponuoti tiek studentai, tiek kviestiniai fotografai.
<...>
______________________________
Paslaugos teikėjas patvirtina, jog yra susipažinęs su Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso
235 straipsnio, numatančio atsakomybę už melagingą ar žinomai neteisingai atliktą vertimą,
reikalavimais.
Vertėjos rekvizitai (vardas, pavardė, parašas)